Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Syria produces about 140,000 barrels of Oil a day, its their largest export income. Most of it goes to Europe, controlled by the US, hence why the French are getting involved. All oil trading is done in dollars, so its in the US intersest for them to install a puppet government that they can control. Share prices, buoyant dollar.

Its nothing to do with chemical weapons, that is a convenient catalyst.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

mikemiller wrote:

Syria produces about 140,000 barrels of Oil a day, its their largest export income. Most of it goes to Europe, controlled by the US, hence why the French are getting involved. All oil trading is done in dollars, so its in the US intersest for them to install a puppet government that they can control. Share prices, buoyant dollar.

Its nothing to do with chemical weapons, that is a convenient catalyst.

America produces 7million bpd.As of 2010 before the civil war Syria was ranked 34th in the world for oil production just behind Thailand.Just dont get them going in for oil at all.Imo its being driven by the Israelis fearful of sarin etc being fired over their border from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Dermo wrote:

Yeh agree. Must admit i'm surprised by Obama. Its the first time he's come across as a power mad war monger.First thing i said to Mrs Derm was this all looks ideal for the offensive on Iran. Very convenient. Cant blame them for that though, that place does need levelling.

Hes been acting like a power mad war monger behind closed doors since he took office, Dermo. He ramped up the war in Afghanistan and his drone operations are basically the worst, ongoing terror ops on the planet.

And theres absolutely nothing wrong with Iran. Its an incredible culture ruled over by headcases. It has the most educated populace in the middle east and the youth of the country are more educated than many western nations. The whole country has been demonised by western media, similar to how they portrayed Chavez in Venezuela. I have Persian friends and its up there on my list of places to see. Persian food is also incredible. Why the flying fuck would you want the great satan to level it?

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

mikemiller wrote:

The US have militarily intervened in Muslim nations three times in the last 15 years, with mixed results but one common underlying motive. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan remain violent countries, with pro western puppet governments in place. China and Russia will not sign the UN mandate allowing UN peacekeepers to be deployed to the territory in an effort to resolve the conflict so USA appoint themselves as global cops and jump to the aid of the poor long suffering locals. Conveniently.

Result: So the USA gain tactical positioning against both Iran and against paranoid antizionist conspiracy within the region, by building airbases closer to its borders within Syria, who are allies to Iran during jihadi conflict with the west, further strengthening US positioning in the region. Coupled with the two bases in Turkey, multiple offshore bases, bases and boots on the ground in Jordan, Yemen, Saudi, the USA gain the upper hand. The Russians lose their tactical positioning over the Med in Syria to an extent or are forced to share it because the American's try to muscle in, which contradicts Russian defense strategy in the first place.

Gadafi's plan for a centralised middle eastern currency that was strongly opposed by the West, but was strongly supported by Saddam and the other oil producing nations, backed in principle by Russia, funded by arab bullion & oil stored in a localised central reserve, with which they planned for oil was to be traded in instead of US dollars and resulting in strengthening the region, failed, because he and Saddam were both removed from power, forcibly, by the USA. All Gulf states and Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lybia revert to trading in US dollars for acquisition and sale of oil. Dollar strengthens. Share prices rise.

USA wins. Nobody ever in the history of the world said war wasn't profitable Matt.

There are some surprisingly lucid points being made here. I hate when people make the flaccid reductionist argument that it's "just about oil." It's never just about oil, it's also about geopolitical positioning. Which you point out.

Now I'm waiting for Ahad and Flaresy to come along and say it's the lizard people or what have you.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

The way I see it is that the main argument for intervention is because chemical weapons have been used, hence we need to show the perpetrators and other would be despotic dictators that gassing your punters is a no no.

The problem here is America has already said there will be no boots on the ground and that these strikes will be small, targeted affairs. So regardless of the shit storm that would surely follow any action, what the fuck kind of a deterrent is that anyway? Realistically if we want to dissuade other mentals from using chemical weapons, we would need to fucking level the place.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

monostereo wrote:

The way I see it is that the main argument for intervention is because chemical weapons have been used, hence we need to show the perpetrators and other would be despotic dictators that gassing your punters is a no no.

This is what I don't understand.

80,000 innocent lives have apparently been lost there before Sarin (and the "red-line") was mentioned. But because the slaughter of innocents was via bullets and bombs that was somehow ok but chemical killing is a no no? ........and people seem to accept this thought process as being reasonable........wtf?

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

Think they should look into breaking Syria up into ethnic regions/provences based on the Sunni-Alawite/Shiite parties also including the Kurdish and Druzes.Seems like it's going down the same road as the former Yugoslavia but how many UN nations would be willing to put boots on the ground.

Re: Syria. Should we blow it up?

chuffer wrote:

monostereo wrote:

The way I see it is that the main argument for intervention is because chemical weapons have been used, hence we need to show the perpetrators and other would be despotic dictators that gassing your punters is a no no.

This is what I don't understand.

80,000 innocent lives have apparently been lost there before Sarin (and the "red-line") was mentioned. But because the slaughter of innocents was via bullets and bombs that was somehow ok but chemical killing is a no no? ........and people seem to accept this thought process as being reasonable........wtf?

I get what youre saying and I agree 100% but theres a difference between being vaporized by an explosive and a slow painful death by Sarin gas.

Not that the sepos hold any kind of moral high ground when it comes to torture but thats the gist of their rationale. Lets hope comrade Putin lives up to his reputation and shows some balls over the weekend at the summit.